Повідомлення: 253
Мова: English
razlem (Переглянути профіль) 17 січня 2011 р. 16:13:45
Comparing it to my own IAL, I find the system in my language to be more intuitive, working from the brain's remarkable pattern-finding abilities. This is while it maintains an Esperanto-esque compounding system, to allow the conjunction of different roots. I'm biased towards it of course
sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 17 січня 2011 р. 17:06:04
And the genius of its structure, apart from it being possibly the simplest imaginable, is that it builds in potential for development without subverting the original structure.
So over the years new roots may be added or existing roots may fall into disuse (become archaic). This applies to the grammatical/semantic roots as well as to the purely semantic.
What catches on is what proves useful, what whithers away is that which is not practical.
Without any proven model of how a human language must work, the best plan of action is suck it and see.
Strictly, Razlem should not refer to his project as a language, but as a scheme for a language. Languages involve social consensus among the speakers. Without a body of speakers and a history of usage no project really merits the term language - well, at least, it's misleading to refer to such things as languages.
Rather than linguistics illuminating Esperanto. Esperanto serves to illuminate the study of Language. You could say that any theory of human language which does not accommodate Esperanto isn't a good theory of Language.
razlem (Переглянути профіль) 17 січня 2011 р. 17:28:04
Meh. Debatable.
"What catches on is what proves useful, what whithers away is that which is not practical"
But which changes will you allow? Suppose people in one region start using contractions "mi'stas" (mi estas), or people in another region shorten the verbs "es", "hav", etc.
razlem (Переглянути профіль) 17 січня 2011 р. 17:29:40
"Logical" to whom?
T0dd (Переглянути профіль) 17 січня 2011 р. 20:09:03
sudanglo:The basic structure of Esperanto owes nothing to 'linguistics' but rather is a logical conception.Although I'm as guilty of using them as the next person, these words "logical", "simple", and "easy" aren't really well defined, as applied to whole languages.
And the genius of its structure, apart from it being possibly the simplest imaginable, is that it builds in potential for development without subverting the original structure.
To my way of thinking, the idea that Esperanto is "logical" is preposterous, since I'd understand that to mean that it follows deductively from a set of axioms. But we all know that it doesn't, and even the celebrated "16 Rules" don't begin to capture it. Moreover, there's no logical necessity in doing things one way rather than another.
Similarly, I wouldn't say that Esperanto is maximally simple. But it's simple enough to be fully functional.
I agree, however, that the use of the Fundamento as a kind of linguistic Constitution was a brilliant idea. As much as would-be reformers are disgusted with it, it has served well as an anchor for over a century, preventing disintegrating without stunting growth.
Linguistics is the science that describes languages as they are, not how they ought to be.
razlem:But which changes will you allow? Suppose people in one region start using contractions "mi'stas" (mi estas), or people in another region shorten the verbs "es", "hav", etc.Why would they? This is why Esperanto is different from other languages. The people who learn it are the very people who accept its "Constitution." They understand that its very existence depends upon it.
sudanglo (Переглянути профіль) 17 січня 2011 р. 23:45:37
The structure of Esperanto is not logical in the sense of - if so and so it follows that we should do so and so - nor in the sense of no other course of action makes sense.
The basic structure of Esperanto is a conceptual structure, a question of form, a logical conception in that sense.
Don't think of 'estas' as the present tense of the verb to be, rather it is a compound of two roots one of which is 'est' the other of which is 'as'.
In principle any other root can be combine with 'as' in the same way. (The limit is whether it produces an intelligible notion).
So, 'peras' (per + as) and 'bonas' (bon +as) - which is 'as' with a preposition and 'as' with an adjective, respectively - are economical words in Esperanto that express the idea of the first root in combination with the idea of the second root rather than conjugation of a verb.
This structure of Esperanto determines the path of its evolution. It would be inconsistent with this all-pervasive structure for it to change in some of the ways that natural languages change.
You are still thinking about Esperanto I suspect in terms of your knowledge of natural languages. That's not productive.
When you have grasped what the structure of Esperanto is, you might wish to revise your opinion as to whether a simpler structure is envisageable.
In order for 'est' to be replaced with 'st' so that people said 'mi stas' (an apostrophe is relevant only if 'est' ekzists) instead of 'mi estas', the community would have to accept a new root 'st', unlikely but possible, same for replacing 'est' with 'es'.
'Hav', of course is already the root. The chance that any Esperantist would say 'mi hav ideon' instead of 'mi havas ideon' is just about zero as you would fully appreciate if you bothered to learn Esperanto.
Jam temp' està !
razlem (Переглянути профіль) 18 січня 2011 р. 01:40:15
I have, and it is possible. Would you like me to explain it?
RiotNrrd (Переглянути профіль) 18 січня 2011 р. 01:51:39
razlem:I have, and it is possible. Would you like me to explain it?To be honest... not really.
razlem (Переглянути профіль) 18 січня 2011 р. 01:55:42
RiotNrrd:I didn't suspect sorazlem:I have, and it is possible. Would you like me to explain it?To be honest... not really.
RiotNrrd (Переглянути профіль) 18 січня 2011 р. 02:33:37
razlem:I didn't suspect soYeah. I mean, while there ARE people here who are interested in conlangs in general, I would hazard that the majority of people here are here because they're interested in just Esperanto. Other conlangs may or may not be interesting to some degree or another, but are essentially irrelevant to the focus of Lernu.